NucNews - November 29, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- africa Earthlife tests nuclear workers Tuesday November 29, 2005 06:37 - (SA Sunday Times) http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/zones/sundaytimesNEW/newsst/newsst1133239061.aspx More than 300 former workers of the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) plant in Pelindaba in the North West province will undergo medical tests at the Health Gap Services, an occupational health consultancy in Centurion, environmental group Earthlife Africa says. The tests would take place before the end of the year, campaign co-ordinator of Earthlife Africa's Nuclear Energy Costs the Earth Campaign (Nectec) Mashile Phalane stated. One of the ill workers, Oupa Lebakeng, would visit a medical specialist at the Little Company of Mary hospital in Pretoria. The screening of another 30 ex-workers at the Health Gap today and Wednesday would follow. They are suspected of suffering from occupational diseases and would provide oral medical histories. Nectec has been waiting for the health records of more than 280 workers since December last year. "The industry-led health investigation proposed by NECSA in July this year is just a cover-up," said Phalane. Spokesperson for the Pelindaba commission of inquiry Simpiwe Msibi said she had no comment to make about Earthlife Africa's statement. The company was forced to undertake a study after employees took their grievances to Earthlife. The Necsa health study was initiated only after Earthlife created awareness through its own health study supported by the South African History Archive (Saha). Necsa has been withholding previous medical records because the filing system was "a mess" and not in line with international standards, Earthlife said. "Ex-workers don't want to take part in the Necsa study. They allege they are either bribed or intimidated," said Phalane. "I have testicular cancer," said Joseph Malatji. "I lost my family, my children and all my happiness after being burned by radioactive chemicals," he added. The Earthlife health investigation was launched after several workers told the organisation of occupational diseases they believe they contracted while working at Necsa's Pelindaba plant. Initially Earthlife Africa identified 29 workers and former workers at Pelindaba who had become ill, and obtained medical records for 23 of them. Five of these people have already died. Thirteen have undergone medical examinations, and 10 have been found with diseases linked to radiation exposure, including skin cancers and eye diseases, said Phalane. "We will continue our own health study under the auspices of Dr Murray Coombs of the Health Gap," he added. -------- australia Aust Senate Unanimously Passes Nuke Disarmament Motion johnhallam2001 From: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign Date: Mon Nov 28, 2005 0:12am USE 29/11/2005 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AUSTRALIA PEOPLE FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT NSW SENATE VOTES UNANIMOUSLY FOR NUKE DISARMAMENT Australian Peace and Disarmament groups today welcomed a unanimous vote by the Australian Senate, on a nuclear disarmament motion put by Democrat leader Senator Lyn Alison, in which Australias commitment to nuclear disarmament was reaffirmed. The Senate vote, supported by the Government, ALP, Greens, and Democrats, welcomes initiatives taken by Australian representatives in the United Nations, in a resolution co-sponsored with Japan, in which the elimination of nuclear weapons is strongly supported. That resolution achieved unprecedented support in the UN General Assembly, with only two countries - the US and India - voting against it. According to Australian peace groups: "We welcome both Australia's co-sponsorship of the L28 resolution, the massive support achieved by that resolution, and todays vote by the Australian Senate that welcomes it." "We very much hope that this unanimous Senate vote will lock in a bi-partisan commitment by Australia to the total and unequivocal elimination of nuclear weapons" "We welcome also the efforts made by Australia on another resolution, L26 on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which also was massively supported, and our chairing of the entry-into-force conference of that treaty." "A number of other nuclear disarmament resolutions were passed by the General Assembly recently, which Australia did not support, and we would urge the government to consider supporting all of them, but in particular to support the New Agenda resolution, and the resolution put by Malaysia on the ICJ decision on the illegality of nuclear weapons." However, we very much welcome both our support for L28 and yesterdays Senate vote welcoming that resolution." Contact: John Hallam 02-9810-2598, 9319-4296 Notice given 10 November 2005 *315 Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Allison): To move-That the Senate- (a) notes and welcomes: (i) the L28 resolution, 'Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons', sponsored by Australia, Bangladesh, Chile, Italy, Japan, Nepal, Nicaragua, Spain, Switzerland and Ukraine and passed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly First Committee with unprecedented support and only India and the United States of America (US) voting against it, and (ii) the L26 resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Czech Republic, Finland, Mexico, New Zealand and South Africa and was passed with only the US voting against it; (b) notes that resolution L28: (i) calls for the nuclear weapon states to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems in ways that promote international stability and security, (ii) encourages further steps leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are committed under Article VI, including deeper reductions in all types of nuclear weapons, and emphasises the importance of applying irreversibility and verifiability, as well as increased transparency in a way that promotes international stability and undiminished security for all, in the process of working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons,*No. 58-28 November 2005 11 (iii) encourages the Russian Federation and the US to implement fully the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions and to undertake nuclear arms reductions beyond those provided for by the treaty, while welcoming the progress made by nuclear weapon states, including the Russian Federation and the US on nuclear arms reductions, (iv) urges all states that have not yet done so to sign and ratify the CTBT at the earliest opportunity with a view to its early entry into force, and stresses the importance of maintaining existing moratoriums on nuclear weapon test explosions, pending the entry into force of the CTBT, (v) calls on states not party to the NPT to accede to it as non-nuclear weapon states without delay and without conditions and, pending their accession, to refrain from acts that would defeat the objective and purpose of the NPT, and to take practical steps in support of the treaty, (vi) emphasises the importance of the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT) and its early conclusion, and calls on all nuclear weapon states and states not party to the NPT to declare moratoriums on the production of fissile material for any nuclear weapons, pending the entry into force of the FMCT, (vii) calls on all states to redouble their efforts to prevent and curb the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery, and (viii) stresses the importance of further efforts for non-proliferation, including the universalisation of International Atomic Energy Agency comprehensive safeguards and the Additional Protocol on strengthened safeguards, and the full implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1540; and (c) reaffirms the importance of: (i) the continued development of the CTBT verification regime, including the international monitoring system, (ii) all states party to the NPT complying with their obligations under all the articles of the treaty, and stresses the importance of an effective treaty review process and the universality of the NPT, (iii) the early entry into force of the CTBT and of all efforts made by Australia to further that aim, (iv) the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation goals and the balanced approach to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation contained in the final document of the 2000 NPT Review conference and the L28 resolution, and (v) international efforts to prevent the acquisition and the use by terrorists of nuclear or other WMD, and radioactive materials and sources, including strengthened international protection of WMD-usable materials and relevant equipment, facilities and technology. ---- Australia Urged to Reconsider Nuclear Alternative By REUTERS Published: November 29, 2005 Filed at 2:48 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-energy-australia-nuclear.html SYDNEY (Reuters) - Senior members of Australia's government are pushing for a debate on a home-grown nuclear power industry in a country that digs up and exports a sizeable chunk of the world's uranium but has long shunned nuclear energy. A push to replace aging coal-fired power plants with nuclear facilities to secure long-term electricity supply and meet ambitious carbon emissions targets has gathered momentum with two ministers putting forward a formal proposal for a study into the sector. Australia relies on vast reserves of cheap coal to generate 80 percent of its energy, but also has high levels of greenhouse gas emissions and risked international condemnation by refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement on global warming. Fossil fuel generation is still forecast at 70 percent by 2020. But having already overturned the 1980s ``three mines'' policy which limited the number of uranium pits -- Australia is home to over one third of global reserves -- there are signs a former pariah is moving up the list of potential energy alternatives. ``The coal lobby remains powerful but it could be that Australia has too many eggs in a single basket,'' said Ian van Altena of the University of Newcastle. ``Arguments about carbon emissions are making all kinds of people consider nuclear who said no in the past. I'd say the mood is slowly changing.'' Two Federal government ministers this week asked the Prime Minister to consider home-grown nuclear power in light of environmental concerns and a booming uranium industry that saw the value of exports rise 30 percent in fiscal 2005. ``We can't responsibly dig 30 percent of the world's uranium out of the ground, export it overseas, and allow some 440 reactors to operate and expand in other parts of the world and not seriously consider this as an option for ourselves,'' Education Minister Brendan Nelson told the Nine Network. Prime Minister John Howard recently said nuclear should be included in the debate on energy options, while the Treasurer has led a group of cabinet ministers in saying such decisions should be left to market forces, provided safeguards are in place. It represents a big shift since a series of decisions in the 1970s which shelved plans for nuclear reactors in Australia. Victoria and New South Wales states still have 1980s legislation which outlaws the construction or operation of nuclear reactors. GLOBAL GROWTH ``If we're considering what generating plant is suitable to be operating in 30-40 years in a greenhouse-constrained world, there's a strong argument for diversifying and including nuclear in the mix for every country with concentrated electricity demand,'' said Ian Hore-Lacy of the Uranium Information Center. Nuclear energy was enjoying a global renaissance, with 25 new reactors under construction to supplement those on-line in 30 nations, producing 16 percent of world electricity, he said. Britain is reviewing plans for a new generation of nuclear plants to improve declining self-sufficiency and avoid the embarrassment of missing self-imposed greenhouse gas targets. China and India are quadrupling nuclear capacity by 2020, and established players such as Japan and South Korea could follow Britain's lead in reviewing their aging infrastructure. But environmentalists still loudly oppose nuclear power, while recognising the need to reduce emissions in the face of Australian energy growth of 2 percent annually until 2030. ``It's too slow, too costly, too dirty and too risky,'' said Dave Sweeney of the Australian Conservation Foundation. ``We reject it as a credible or sustainable solution for climate change when real renewable alternatives already exist.'' Sweeney pointed to the decades required to establish costly nuclear facilities at a time when quick emissions cuts are needed, and noted the emissions-intensive uranium mining process and the problems of dealing with radioactive waste materials. Hore-Lacy said nuclear power was operationally cheaper than coal and gas and required no more capital investment than new coal plants. Australia exports uranium -- now selling at over $30 per pound -- to 36 countries holding bilateral safeguard agreements for use of material. Formal talks are expected shortly on allowing uranium exports to China. -------- britain Nuclear fuels political tensions By Brian Taylor BBC Scotland political editor Tuesday, 29 November 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4482872.stm When Tony Blair eventually managed to deliver his CBI speech - after a little local difficulty with Greenpeace protesters - he indicated that energy policy was back on the global agenda "with a vengeance". The prime minister is right. Right as regards the UK: whether to replace redundant nuclear capacity or not is one of the most substantive policy decisions currently facing the body politic. But right too as regards Scotland where the issue has an added edge. The future of energy provision is under review Most assume, with some justification, that the prime minister has already arrived at the conclusion of the energy needs review which he has now signalled. The clue? His own words. He told Labour's autumn conference that future policy could not exclude new nuclear capacity. And, in his CBI speech, he spelled out the fundamental problem - as he perceives it - in blunt language. Old coal and nuclear stations were running down. That would leave "a big hole in Britain's energy supply". Some of this would be replaced by renewables "but not all of it can". The implicit answer? New nuclear stations. QED. That will, of course, prompt a huge debate across the UK. The Greenpeace demonstrators who disrupted the prime minister's speech with banners reading "Nuclear - wrong answer" will continue to make that point and will be joined by others. Industry, meanwhile, will broadly support the nuclear option. Nationalist gift So what is left for Scotland to say - apart from joining that general clamour? What is left when energy strategy is reserved to Westminster? Answer: plenty. Think of it this way. Energy strategy is indeed reserved - but land use planning is devolved. This has yet to be tested but I assume that means that the Scottish Executive could block specific proposals for a nuclear power station at a site in Scotland. Put another way, the UK Government could decide - strategically - that it wants more nuclear capacity and that it wants Scotland to play a part in that. But the executive could veto each and every individual proposal. If they had a mind to do so. If you doubt me, consider the alternatives. How, physically, would a new atomic power station be constructed in Scotland if the planning authorities have said no? Ministers are not exactly inclined to pick a fight with each other now on an issue which has the potential to be utterly divisive In policy terms, could Westminster over-ride the stated objection of the executive? I cannot conceive of a better gift to the nationalist opposition. One might as well wrap it in silk ribbon. The executive's present policy is to oppose new atomic capacity unless and until the issue of nuclear waste disposal has been addressed. That is the policy shared by both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The words are the same - sometimes formulaically so. But they mask very different emphases. I believe Labour MSPs would be rather more inclined to give ground on new nuclear provision. Some of them, including some ministers, are already well disposed towards nuclear. Others could be convinced. They might be convinced by the prime minister, or by claims that alternative renewable energy would provide only intermittent supply, or by suggestions that nuclear provides a serious alternative to power generation which presently enhances global warming. They might read the new report from the European Environment Agency warning that Europe faces its most severe climate changes for 5,000 years. They might be impressed by arguments that new nuclear is coming in England - and that Scotland will surrender jobs if she doesn't join in. Energy challenge By contrast, the Liberal Democrats are standing firm against nuclear. They won't budge until the waste issue is settled. And they don't expect it to be settled. Their position, in essence, is: just say no to nuclear power. They are listening to the argument that nuclear power is too costly; that it damages the environment; that investment in nuclear closes down alternatives. In particular, they are heeding the case for renewables. Senior Lib Dems say that if Scotland opts for new nuclear, then the drive to create renewable capacity and to make it provide a sustainable supply will falter. Again in essence, they are saying that Scotland should deliberately present itself with an energy challenge in order to push the pace on renewables; the argument being that technologies like wind and wave power could provide a clean sustainable option; and that Scotland could gain economically from leading Europe in this field. What of the other parties? The SSP and the Greens are anti-nuclear. The Tories take the line that only nuclear seriously confronts a possible energy gap. Tensions lie ahead for the Holyrood chamber The SNP are vigorously against nuclear power. They describe it as a "dirty, costly" technology - irrelevant to Scotland which, they say, can be more than sufficient in other fuels. They want the executive to declare bluntly - now - that Scotland will say no. Well, don't hold your breath. Ministers are not exactly inclined to pick a fight with each other now on an issue which has the potential to be utterly divisive. For now, both executive parties are laying an enormous stress on renewables: hence the recent announcement by Labour's Tom McCabe of possible council tax breaks for the sector. Eventually, though, they may have to confront the nuclear question. Not immediately, certainly - but the pressure will increase with a series of developments. Consultants are due to report by the end of the year on Scotland's energy needs. More significantly, a UK study of waste management options will report by next summer: roughly the same timescale as the prime minister's review. Which could leave the two coalition parties going into the next Holyrood election saying different things on nuclear power. How about this? The Lib Dems will say no. Labour will say maybe, if not yes. Tensions ahead. ---- Britain Puts Nuclear Power Back on Agenda By REUTERS Published: November 29, 2005 Filed at 11:04 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-britain.html LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair put nuclear power back on the agenda on Tuesday when he launched a review of energy policy, pledging to decide by the middle of next year on how to fill a looming energy gap. A review concluded two years ago that nuclear costs were unclear and that renewable sources such as wind or solar power, along with less wasteful use of fossil fuels, could suffice. But booming oil and gas prices, global warming, an increased emphasis on energy security and the need to decide soon on whether to replace aging nuclear plants is putting pressure on the government to take another look. ``(The review) will include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations,'' Blair told business leaders, adding that there would be a firm policy announcement in early summer 2006. Anti-nuclear demonstrators, concerned about risks to the environment from dangerous nuclear waste, staged a protest ahead of Blair's speech, mingling in suits and ties with delegates before clambering up into the rafters of the conference center. The prime minister was forced to deliver his speech in a cramped sideroom as the Greenpeace protesters unfurled a banner and dropped leaflets, saying: ``Nuclear: Wrong Answer.'' Whatever the outcome of the review, the nuclear lobby and environmentalists agreed it would give a signal to the rest of the world on whether to build more nuclear plants or close them. ``At the very least the nuclear plants need to be replaced, and we suggest that they should be increased,'' said Nigel Withey, managing director of Inenco, UK-based energy consultants. ``Renewables have a part to play, but only a part. We don't see a huge alternative to nuclear power.'' MIND MADE UP? Speculation is rife that Blair has already made up his mind to invest in nuclear power but a significant number of lawmakers in his centre-left Labor party are against the idea. Blair told the annual conference of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) employers' group that in 15 years, the mothballing of old coal and nuclear stations would leave a big hole in Britain's energy supply. ``Some of this will be replaced by renewables but not all of it can,'' he said. Business leaders favor nuclear power but environmental groups want more efficient use of fossil fuels, less electricity waste and more renewable power. Britain has become a net importer of gas as its North Sea supplies dwindle and the government is concerned about the security of supply, which will increasingly come from abroad. Rocketing gas prices have highlighted possible problems. Only one of the UK's nuclear power stations is due to be open in 2023. Without new investment, nuclear power will meet 4 percent of Britain's energy needs by 2010, down from 21 percent. But Blair faces opposition from Labor lawmakers, some 40 of whom have signed a motion rejecting new nuclear power stations. Since a May election slashed his majority, that number siding with opposition parties can defeat the government in parliament, although Blair can probably count on opposition Conservative support for nuclear energy. --- Nuclear protest hits Blair speech BBC, Tuesday, 29 November 2005, 15:26 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4478946.stm Greenpeace protesters have disrupted a speech used by Tony Blair to launch an energy review which could lead to new nuclear power stations in the UK. Two protesters climbed up into the roof of the hall where Mr Blair was due to address the Confederation of British Industry conference. After a 48-minute delay, Mr Blair made his speech in a smaller side-hall. He said renewable sources could meet some but not all energy gaps and the review would examine nuclear options. Opening his speech in a packed room in the Business Design Centre in Islington, London, Mr Blair said: "Nuclear power is of course a difficult and a challenging issue. "Like most tough issues what we actually need is an open and democratic debate, not one conducted by protests and demonstrations to stop people having the freedom to express their views." Amid the noise from clattering microphones and mobile phones ringing, Mr Blair joked: "This is going to be a surreal occasion... I'm going to give this speech if it's the last thing I do." Offer refused Greenpeace wanted to be allowed to make a 10-minute speech in return for ending the protest. But CBI director general Digby Jones decided to move the PM's speech instead, saying: "At the end of the day I don't give in to ultimatums." He said he had offered two "legitimate" Greenpeace delegates the chance to ask the prime minister the first question after his speech in return for ending their protest, but they had refused. A protester balances on a girder in the hall's roof The two protesters, wearing yellow jackets over their suits and with conference delegates' badges, appeared on girders in the roof about 20 minutes before Mr Blair was due to begin at 0930 GMT. One unfurled a banner saying: "Nuclear: Wrong Answer." They also dropped stickers onto the delegates below them. The men, both believed to be trained climbers, were attached by loops of rope to the roof girders. 'Disgrace' Greenpeace named the protesters as Huw Williams and Nyls Verhauelt. They have now been arrested and taken to a London police station. Mr Verhauelt said: "We should have a democratic right to have a voice here as well. This was the only way we could say what we wanted to say." CBI deputy director general John Cridland condemned the protest as "quite disgraceful". He said the two men had posed as employees of a fictitious company, E-Lingo and had booked for the conference as delegates last week. Mr Cridland said "it would be a sad day" if every company had to be checked out before being granted access but the CBI would be holding a full review of security. Metal detectors and x-ray machines were used at the conference, and delegates' bags were searched on entry. The CBI says initial investigations show the men entered the building wearing climbing harnesses, concealed beneath their clothes. These would not be detected by the security equipment. Nuclear focus The prime minister is believed to view nuclear power as a way to improve the security of the UK's energy supply and also help to meet UK greenhouse gas targets. Business chiefs want a quick decision. Green groups say there are cleaner and safer alternatives to fossil fuels. Mr Blair said the energy review would be headed by the Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks and report by the middle of next year. The review would "include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations", he said. --- Yes please? No thanks? For and against nuclear power Today, Tony Blair signals the first step to a new generation of nuclear power stations. What are the pros and cons? Published: 29 November 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article330005.ece Five reasons for nuclear power 1 Generating electricity by nuclear reactors does not produce carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas causing global warming and climate change. Britain's existing nuclear power plants reduce the nation's carbon emissions by between 7 and 14 per cent. 2 Building new nuclear power stations will ensure the nation retains control over its own sources of energy. Security of supply is essential in an unstable world where oil and gas comes mainly from regions that could hold Britain to ransom by threatening to disrupt supplies. 3 Nuclear power is a mature technology and has proven reliability. It has been developed over 50 years and the latest reactors are reliable, clean and efficient. The last 10 nuclear reactors to be built in the world have been delivered on time and to their budget. 4 Generating electricity by nuclear power is a 24/7 operation and is not subject to the vagaries of wind, sun or tides. It can be fine-tuned to meet peak demand and will not let us down in the depths of winter. 5 As a founder member of the nuclear club, Britain has the expertise to operate the new nuclear-fission reactors. By building new fission reactors Britain will be well placed to develop cleaner fusion reactors. Five reasons against nuclear power 1 Nuclear power produces radioactive waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. The Government still does not know what to do with the waste that has accumulated from more than 50 years of nuclear power. Costs of disposal are estimated at about £56bn. 2 The technology of generating electricity from nuclear fission can also be used to produce nuclear weapons. Civil nuclear power has been used for a covert nuclear weapons programme by several regimes. Zimbabwe is the latest country suspected. 3 Nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist attack. Terrorists are already believed to have targeted nuclear power plants, including one in Australia. Waste and fuel shipments are also at risk of being hijacked and used to manufacture a "dirty" bomb. 4 The legacy of Chernobyl proves nuclear power is not without enormous risk. Although the risk may be small, the consequences of a catastrophic accident are immense. 5 Nuclear power is not carbon free. Fossil fuels are needed to run the nuclear cycle, from mining the uranium ore and shipping it to Britain, to disposing of the huge volumes of radioactive waste. ---- Nuclear protest hits Blair speech Tuesday, 29 November 2005 BBC http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4478946.stm?display=1 Greenpeace protesters have disrupted a speech used by Tony Blair to launch an energy review which could lead to new nuclear power stations in the UK. Two protesters climbed up into the roof of the hall where Mr Blair was due to address the Confederation of British Industry conference. After a 48-minute delay, Mr Blair made his speech in a smaller side-hall. He said renewable sources could meet some but not all energy gaps and the review would examine nuclear options. Opening his speech in a packed room in the Business Design Centre in Islington, London, Mr Blair said: "Nuclear power is of course a difficult and a challenging issue. "Like most tough issues what we actually need is an open and democratic debate, not one conducted by protests and demonstrations to stop people having the freedom to express their views." Amid the noise from clattering microphones and mobile phones ringing, Mr Blair joked: "This is going to be a surreal occasion... I'm going to give this speech if it's the last thing I do." Offer refused Greenpeace wanted to be allowed to make a 10-minute speech in return for ending the protest. But CBI director general Digby Jones decided to move the PM's speech instead, saying: "At the end of the day I don't give in to ultimatums." He said he had offered two "legitimate" Greenpeace delegates the chance to ask the prime minister the first question after his speech in return for ending their protest, but they had refused. A protester balances on a girder in the hall's roof The two protesters, wearing yellow jackets over their suits and with conference delegates' badges, appeared on girders in the roof about 20 minutes before Mr Blair was due to begin at 0930 GMT. One unfurled a banner saying: "Nuclear: Wrong Answer." They also dropped stickers onto the delegates below them. The men, both believed to be trained climbers, were attached by loops of rope to the roof girders. 'Disgrace' Greenpeace named the protesters as Huw Williams and Nyls Verhauelt. They have now been arrested and taken to a London police station. Mr Verhauelt said: "We should have a democratic right to have a voice here as well. This was the only way we could say what we wanted to say." CBI deputy director general John Cridland condemned the protest as "quite disgraceful". He said the two men had posed as employees of a fictitious company, E-Lingo and had booked for the conference as delegates last week. Mr Cridland said "it would be a sad day" if every company had to be checked out before being granted access but the CBI would be holding a full review of security. Metal detectors and x-ray machines were used at the conference, and delegates' bags were searched on entry. The CBI says initial investigations show the men entered the building wearing climbing harnesses, concealed beneath their clothes. These would not be detected by the security equipment. Nuclear focus The prime minister is believed to view nuclear power as a way to improve the security of the UK's energy supply and also help to meet UK greenhouse gas targets. Business chiefs want a quick decision. Green groups say there are cleaner and safer alternatives to fossil fuels. Mr Blair said the energy review would be headed by the Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks and report by the middle of next year. The review would "include specifically the issue of whether we facilitate the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations", he said. Vote: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4478946.stm?display=1 Yes 28% No 72% HAVE YOUR SAY Send us your comments Head to head: Nuclear debate ---- Head-to-head: Nuclear power Full transcript of the debate on nuclear power on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, featuring Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation and former Downing Street press secretary and nuclear power supporter Sir Bernard Ingham. Andrew Simms Tuesday, 29 November 2005 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4481380.stm The nuclear resurrection is a gravity-defying trick worthy of the illusionist, David Blaine. Promoted as the answer to climate change and energy security, it is neither. As a response to global warming, it is too slow, too expensive and too limited. And, in an age of terrorist threats and creeping proliferation, think Iran, it is more of a risk than a solution. The voodoo economics used to justify nuclear power underestimates its real costs by at least a factor of three. Consider this: pound for pound of investment, new nuclear would generate less energy, create fewer jobs and reduce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a wide range of renewable energy technologies, combined heat and power generators and, effectively, energy-efficiency too. Nuclear also has a dirty little secret: startlingly there's only a few decades left of the proven high-grade uranium ore it needs for fuel. It's also far less climate-friendly than claimed. Once low-grade ore is used, costs go up and all the energy used from mining to decommissioning means it can lead to more carbon emissions than fossil fuel-powered gas generators. Perversely, nuclear could even hasten global warming. The government's own Performance and Innovation Unit warned that subsidising nuclear could set back better, smaller-scale alternatives which could turn every home and business into a climate-friendly power station. Finland, the only western country with a new nuclear programme, was officially criticised last year by the International Energy Agency for failing its renewable energy plan. Their carbon emissions are also rising. Nuclear's last great hope, the Thorp reprocessing facility, designed to help the industry pay, is already closed and costing millions. If Tony Blair writes the blank cheque needed to resurrect nuclear power, it will be the biggest financial scam since Enron, but far more deadly. Sir Bernard Ingham Nuclear power is economically unattractive, the government has parroted up to now. It is of course nonsense. According to the Royal Academy of Engineering, supported by other studies, nuclear was only marginally dearer than gas-generated electricity before the recent huge increases in gas prices. Now it is the cheapest option, especially when the environmental costs of other fuels are taken into account. It is the cheapest, even though the climate change levy is irrationally imposed upon it, since it is the cleanest of all methods of electricity generation. And it is the cheapest, even though uniquely it reflects its estimated environmental costs in its current price. About 4% of the price you pay for nuclear electricity is set aside for dealing with decommissioning of plants and waste disposal. Ministers have had a monstrous cheek in dismissing nuclear on economic grounds when they are pouring billions of good money after bad in subsidies into unreliable, intermittent and therefore basically mucky wind power. Nuclear doesn't want subsidies but it does need government help with such things as licensing reactors, identifying sites for new power stations, clarifying the market regime within which it must operate and of course identifying the site for the disposal of long-term waste. If they have their way, anti-nukes will not merely bankrupt Britain through grossly expensive wind and gas-generated electricity, they will also wreck our economy and prosperity by closing half the generating capacity that uses coal and nuclear. That will leave a huge gap in our supplies in 10 to 20 years' time and then we shall discover what is the dearest electricity in the world - power that is not there at the touch of a switch. We need nuclear for a secure, competitive, cleaner future. -------- europe Environment Ministry approves storing spent fuel in Temelin CESKE BUDEJOVICE 29.11.2005 http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=160123 The Czech Environment Ministry on Monday agreed with the construction of an intermediate storage facility for spent fuel on the premises of the Temelin nuclear power plant by 2014, the ministry spokeswoman Karolina Sulova said. The Environment Ministry gave its approval in a finding issued as part of the proposed construction's official Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The construction's opponents from among environmental and civic activists disapprove of the ministry's finding and have not ruled out challenging further steps taken in preparation of the construction in court. "The Environment Ministry issued its approval on Monday, attaching a number of comments to its finding," Sulova said. The finding states that, in its planned form, the facility sufficiently protects against ionising radiation, does not negatively affect the health of the local population and does not harm the surrounding natural habitat. The document goes on to describe the proposed form of spent fuel storage as optimal and appropriate. However, anti-Temelin activists refuse these findings, pointing out that the Environment Ministry did not accept most of their critical remarks regarding the facility's safety and its negative impact on the social and economic atmosphere of the area. The activists argue that, based on their remarks, the ministry should have blocked the EIA process. "It evokes 'jolly good nuclear optimism'. The ministry accepted the pro-nuclear stance of those preparing the proposed construction's documentation and its expert appraisal. This is so even though Environment Minister Libor Ambrozek says it is necessary to respect the opinions of people in the region. They disregarded the people that were actively opposed to the construction. This approach is far from our idea of democracy," Dana Kuchtova from Jihoceske matky (south-Bohemian mothers), an environmentalist association, said. She added that the association will do all it can to overturn the planned construction. Several residents of the village of Temelin have earlier requested that citizens be given the opportunity to voice their opinion about the proposed construction in a local referendum. However, representatives of the Temelin nuclear power plant have refused to hold a referendum and their stance has been upheld by the regional court in Ceske Budejovice, south Bohemia. The referendum's preparatory committee challenged the regional court's ruling in the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has not yet decided about the case. "A final solution to the storage of spent nuclear fuel is still not in sight, despite optimistic statements made by representatives of the nuclear energy industry. The storage facility in Temelin is likely to be in use for longer than is currently planned. Its impact on the environment should therefore now be assessed even more thoroughly, which did not happen," stated Edvard Sequens from the Calla association. Temelin power plant spokesman Milan Nebesar said that the CEZ energy company, the power plant's operator, has obtained the Environment Ministry's finding and is now awaiting an assessment by the European Commission (EC). Once CEZ receives a statement from the EC, it will approach the State Office for Nuclear Safety with a request that it approve the storage facility's location. "I expect that to happen by the end of the year. Only then can we officially request that the responsible construction office begin the necessary administrative proceedings regarding the area, which could probably take place in the spring," said Nebesar. He described the fact that the ministry's finding expects the storage facility to cause no environmental damage as positive. "It can therefore be ruled out that the proposed facility's environmental impact could transcend the country's border," added the spokesman. The Temelin intermediate storage facility should begin operation in 2014. The facility should be able to store 1,370 tonnes of spent fuel. The two blocs of the Temelin nuclear power plant are expected to produce that amount together over the next 30 years. Temelin technicians currently store the power plant's spent uranium fuel elements in a pool inside the reactor, where the heat output of the complied elements is decreased and where the fuel's activity is also lowered. The longevity of Temelin's planned intermediate storage facility is roughly 60 years. An intermediate storage facility similar to the one CEZ plans to construct in Temelin, albeit smaller, has been in operation on the premises of the nuclear power plant in Dukovany, south Moravia, since 1995. -------- iran Iran nukes vs. Russian diplomacy By Modher Amin Nov 29, 2005, 19:00 GMT United Press International http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/printer_1065345.php http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20051130-083939-7838r TEHRAN, Iran (UPI) -- The U.N.`s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has put off taking Iran to the U.N. Security Council to give time for a new Russian diplomatic initiative to work. The Russian offer, which aims to recognize Iran`s right to nuclear technology, reportedly makes a key concession of allowing Iran to develop an early part of the fuel cycle -- including purifying and reconstituting mined uranium into solid form known as yellowcake and the conversion of the yellowcake into UF6, a gas that is the feedstock for enrichment. By stipulating that the very sensitive step of the uranium enrichment -- feeding the gas through centrifuges -- shall be carried out on Russian territory at a plant to be built and jointly owned with Iran, the offer is meant to provide safeguards against the diversion of materials for any weapons program. Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel while highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons. But there seems to be little space for compromise. On Sunday, Iran`s Foreign Ministry said the country reserved the right to restart uranium enrichment work for \'research and development\' purposes, insisting the sensitive nuclear activity was not up for negotiation. The comments on enrichment research came after diplomats at the IAEA in Vienna said they had seen a four-page intelligence document claiming Iran had discussed options for possibly resuming enrichment at the Natanz facility in central Iran, where there is already a cascade of 164 centrifuges. But ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said the report was \'baseless,\' nonetheless repeating that the suspension of enrichment work at Natanz was \'voluntary.\' Playing it down as \'media speculation\' and saying that \'Russia has not offered any proposals yet,\' Asefi also said any talks would need to provide \'concrete guarantees\' that Iran could conduct fuel cycle work on its own soil -- a position at odds with the Russian compromise plan and the positions of the European Union and the United States. \'Debate on Russia`s plan is a media speculation. Such a news fabrication is aimed at determining the outcome of talks by the media while it should be determined on the negotiation table,\' he told reporters during a weekly news conference on Sunday, but adding, at the same time, \'it is crystal clear that any plan which embodies production of peaceful nuclear fuel inside Iran can be reviewed.\' On the resumption of talks with Europe, Asefi said: \'We believe talks with Europe should be logical and within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency and common international regulations. These talks should not set specific rules and regulations for Iran and their period should be fixed.\' \'The negotiations should not aim at wasting time and the approach towards Iran should not be discriminatory,\' he further said, according to state news agency IRNA. Iran`s ambassador to the IAEA, Mohammad Mehdi Akhundzadeh, also was quoted by the Iranian media as saying that \'Like all member countries in the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Islamic Republic of Iran has the right to enrich uranium.\' He repeated his country`s refusal to give up enrichment on its territory, saying Tehran was \'ready to study any proposals including the Russian proposal, but any such proposals must guarantee Iran`s right to uranium enrichment.\' Several members of Iran`s conservative-held parliament have also rejected the Russian proposal, saying it is a \'risky diversion\' in Iran`s nuclear dossier and a \'means to prevent Iran from its right to a complete fuel cycle work.\' The EU and United States suspect that the Islamic republic, despite its denials, is using an atomic energy drive as a cover for nuclear weapons development. Iran has already refused an EU offer of trade and other incentives in exchange for a permanent suspension of the development of a fuel enrichment cycle that has the potential for military use. The IAEA`s 35-nation board of governors was meeting in Vienna Thursday to review progress since Sept. 24, when it found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a finding that requires eventual referral to the Security Council for possible international sanctions. Speaking for the EU presidency, Peter Jenkins, British ambassador to the IAEA, warned Iran against making any \'unilateral moves\' to increase its atomic activities and said Britain \'reserves ... the right\' to convene a special IAEA session ahead of the next scheduled meeting in March. He also said Iran needed to \'seriously\' consider the Russian proposal\' and return to negotiations \'on a reasonable basis and in good faith.\' Jenkins warned that the opening for talks, and the IAEA`s holding off on referral, should not be misunderstood by Iran. \'Iran should not conclude that this window of opportunity will remain open in all circumstances,\' he said, adding Iran`s failing to fully cooperate with an IAEA investigation of its past and current nuclear activities \'undermines its claim that its nuclear program is peaceful in nature.\' The latest IAEA report chastised Iran for again failing to provide adequate cooperation and denying IAEA inspector access to suspect military sites. But according to Akhundzadeh, \'Iran has been cooperating with the agency beyond its commitments and we believe this is the utmost cooperation a country can have with the IAEA.\' Meanwhile, a majority of deputies in the Iranian parliament last week gave their final approval to a law that would oblige the hard-line government to \'stop voluntary and non-legally binding measures and implement its scientific, research and executive programs\' in the nuclear field if the Iranian case were taken up in New York. The move, although short of referring to specific reprisals, is subject to the approval by the legislative watchdog, the Guardian Council. EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana Wednesday called on Iran to make concessions on its nuclear program in order to allow talks with the EU to resume. The EU would like \'very much to resume dialogue\' with Iran on its nuclear program, \'but for that to happen, they also have to contribute,\' Solana told a press conference in Warsaw. \'They have to at least reduce the level of (uranium) conversion that they are doing now,\' Solana said. \'What (the EU) would like to do is continue offering the possibility to Iran to keep on with dialogue and keep on with the objective, which is very clear to us, that Iran has the right to have a peaceful program for nuclear energy, but we don`t want that program to be taken in a military direction,\' Solana said. \'That is something that we would object to, we would not accept. That is not only the position of the EU but the position of the majority of the international community.\' EU-Iran talks collapsed last August when Iran broke a suspension of uranium conversion it had begun 9 months earlier. The British government confirmed Monday the European Union had delivered a letter to Iran over the weekend offering to renew nuclear talks with Iran. The British Foreign Office said that the offer was made \'to discuss the basis for further negotiations.\' \'In this context, we support ideas such as the Russian proposal for a joint venture for uranium enrichment outside Iran,\' a Foreign Office spokesman was quoted by IRNA as saying. He was, however, unable to confirm reports that the resumption of talks could start as early as Dec.10, saying that there had been \'no dates or locations\' agreed for officials to meet. EU diplomats had already cited Dec. 6 as a possible date for a meeting between the two sides. The offer was made in response to a letter sent earlier this month by the secretary of Iran`s National Security Council, Ali Larijani, to Britain, France and Germany, which have been leading EU nuclear negotiations. In his letter, Larijani had announced that \'Iran welcomes rational and constructive negotiations in the framework of international rules and regulations.\' The top negotiator had also stressed the need for the Islamic republic to \'acquire its legal and legitimate right of the Iranian nation and guarantee the country`s national interests.\' Analysts say the West has now set enriching uranium -- as opposed to uranium conversion earlier -- as the new red line in the showdown with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. If Iran moved ahead with enrichment, they add, it would not be enough, in terms of legality, to get non-aligned states and countries like Russia, which defend Iran`s right to peaceful nuclear technology, to favor Security Council referral. It is not clear either how far China would be ready to take its sympathetic attitude to the call for Iran to stop enrichment, even with its delegate warning Iran \'to co-operate\', otherwise the issue \'handled inappropriately, could get out of the framework of the IAEA and worse, the situation could get out of control.\' ---- Britain Certain Iran Developing Long-Range Weapons Straw's comments came after Tehran rejected a compromise plan to allow Russia to conduct uranium enrichment - a process which can make both nuclear fuel and the explosive core of a weapon - on their behalf. London (AFP) Nov 29, 2005 http://www.spacemart.com/news/iran-05zzzzzzs.html British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tuesday it was an "incontrovertible" fact that Iran was developing long-range missiles. But he stopped short of asserting that Tehran was using its fledgling nuclear programme -- currently under intense scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- to develop nuclear weapons. Questioned in the British parliament's lower House of Commons, Straw was asked what plans were in place to deal with the "doomsday situation" of Iranian weapons being developed capable of reaching England's south coast. He replied: "The fact that the government of Iran are developing longer range missiles is incontrovertible. Whether they are using their nuclear power programme to develop nuclear weapons is not yet incontrovertible. "There is a lot of circumstantial evidence which has raised significant anxieties in the minds of the international community." Straw said he believed Iran was "at the very least developing options for a nuclear weapons programme" but stated the current approach to control this was favoured. Iran could face UN Security Council sanctions over its nuclear programme, which the United States and other nations suspect is a front for developing a weapons capability, and therefore non-compliant with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Relations with the European Union, the United States and other Western countries have been further strained since hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called in October for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Straw's comments came after Tehran rejected a compromise plan to allow Russia to conduct uranium enrichment -- a process which can make both nuclear fuel and the explosive core of a weapon -- on their behalf. Iran's nuclear negotiator, Javad Vaidi, said Tuesday they will only accept a plan to make nuclear fuel inside the country and would not continue talks about the programme with the threat of UN sanctions hanging over them. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Tony Blair Tuesday announced a sweeping review of Britain's energy needs to explore the feasibility of building new nuclear power stations. Blair -- who is reportedly in favour of resurrecting Britain's nuclear energy programme -- gave his strongest hint yet that a combination of nuclear and renewable sources could be the answer to a predicted future energy gap. David Hamilton -- a member of parliament from Blair's ruling Labour Party -- asked Straw: "What gives us the right to tell whether we can expand our nuclear energy and, at the same time, tell other countries they can't have it?" Straw said the suggestion was a "popular misconception", explaining Iran was entitled to develop nuclear power but not use the technology to develop nuclear weapons. ---- France warns Iran against nuclear intransigence Tue. 29 Nov 2005 Iran Focus http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4638 London, Nov. 29 – French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin warned Iran’s clerical government on Tuesday to accept the latest European offer on its controversial nuclear program, or brace itself for a confrontation with the United Nations Security Council. In an interview with CNN’s chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, de Villepin said, “We have made an offer [to Iran]. … If they don't accept... then we will have to go to the Security Council”. “I think it is in the interests of the international community, in the interests of Iran, to accept these proposals”, the French premier said. France, Britain and Germany – the “EU-3” – have led negotiations with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program since 2003. The talks broke off earlier this year when Iran unilaterally breached its agreement by resuming suspended activities of the nuclear fuel cycle. Iran’s ultra-Islamist officials and media have been celebrating their “victory” over the West in the wake of the reported decision by the EU-3 to drop their demand that Iran shut down its nuclear plant in Isfahan before the resumption of talks. Asked if it was true that “the EU3 is ready to start negotiations again”, de Villepin said, “No. We have made an offer. And Iran has decided to resume the enrichment of uranium, the conversion of uranium, and I think it is very important now today to put pressure on Iran to make sure that they accept this offer”. The French Prime Minister said that it was difficult to predict Tehran’s response to the European offer. He hinted that France would not oppose Security Council sanctions on Iran if it refused to cooperate with the international community. Asked what sanctions he could foresee, he said, “There is one key factor of diplomacy, never tell what you will do before”. ---- IRAN NUCLEAR NEGOTIATOR WARNS EUROPE 29-Nov-05 (AKI) http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.234617206&par=0 Tehran, 29 Nov. - In a extensive interview with the Tehran-based Mehr news agency, Javad Vaidi, the head of the Iranian delegation which will meet with representatives of the three European Union countries of Britain, France and Germany on 6 December, has warned that Iran is only interested in the negotiations if there will be the recognition of its right to conduct uranium enrichment, a process which can be used in the development of nuclear weapons. "As was anticipated by Ali Larijani, the secretary general of the Supreme Council of National Security, these talks could go forward only and exclusively in the case that there is a recognition of the Islamic Republic's right to complete its uranium enrichment plant" Vaidi, said. “We will not sit at the negotiating table with the three European countries, if there are pre-conditions of this type," Vaidi, Larijani's deputy added. Vaidi also warned that if in the course of the coming meeting of the governors of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the issue of Iran is included as part of the agenda to be dealt with, "the Islamic republic will immediately abandon the negotiating table." "We are against these talks that do not have a specific aim and we believe that in no case is it possible to negotiate on our rights to enrich uranium in our plants," said Vaidi. Vaidi stressed that his country has already rejected the European proposal to transfer the uranium enrichment to a foreign country. In conclusion, Vaidi said that "without the support of Russia and China, Europe and the United States could never refer the case of Iran to the United Nations security council." Iran had frozen all work at Isfahan late last year under a deal with France, Britain and Germany but resumed work in August after Tehran rejected an EU offer of trade and other incentives in exchange for a cessation of fuel work and resumed uranium conversion, which is a precursor to enrichment work. The IAEA last month passed a resolution submitted by Britain, France and Germany, which paved the way for Iran to be reported to the UN Security Council over its nuclear activities. The EU countries and the United States are concerned that Iran's uranium enrichment programme could be used to build weapons. Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful and designed to meet its energy needs. Iran had informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) late October that it planned to process a new batch of uranium without giving a specific date and earlier this month confirmed that it had begun the process at its plant in Isfahan. ---- Entire enriching process to be conducted in Iran Tuesday, November 29 , 2005 - © 2005IranMania.com http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?ArchiveNews=Yes&NewsCode=38188&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs LONDON, November 29 (IranMania) - Iran's Supreme National Security Council Spokesman Hossein Entezami emphasized, "The entire process of uranium enrichment must be conducted inside Iran," IRNA said. Speaking to IRNA Political Desk, Entezami reiterated, "The country's high ranking officials intend to have the full cycle of nuclear fuel production in our own soil, in other words, they want Iran to join the world nuclear club." He added, "When we talk about the entire cycle of producing the nuclear fuel inside Iran we mean all stages of enrichment need to be conducted in this country relying on technical knowledge of Iranian experts." IRNA asked, "Has Russia presented any offer in this respect to Tehran so far?" Entezami said, "We have not received any proposal from Moscow yet and as the secretary of Russia's National Security Council, too, has announced in an interview with the press, Moscow has not even prepared a plan for the purpose." Entezami meanwhile said, "Iran naturally expects all friendly countries to pay due attention to IRI's regional weigh in their pursuing our country's nuclear case firstly, and to heed the Iranian nations' often emphasized demand on the issue, secondly." The SNSC Spokesman reiterated, "It is quite true that we have proposed international cooperation in our nuclear activities, which is an important sign of our determination to build trust, but that does not mean we are ready also for conducting a part of our enrichment activities abroad." He added, "Yielding to such a demand, particularly in case of those parts of the nuclear fuel production that are more technical and equire higher precision would in click a choke in the process of our uclear activities that would result on depriving us of mastering the complete technology for good," IRNA noted Entezami considered several aspects of Iran's diplomatic activities, including "continuing moves aimed at confidence-building, continuous cooperation with the the UN nuclear watchdog, IAEA, and providing transparent information for all interested in the issue, as Iran has done in the past." The SNSC Spokesman referred to "consultations with member countries of the IAEA Board of Governors and taking broader advantage of the potentials of two UN permanent Security Council member countries, China and Russia, as other objectives of Iran's diplomatic moves." He meanwhile considered the timely initiative of the SNSC Secretary Ali Larijani in inviting the EU troika to resume negotiations with Iran as "Another aspect of Iran's dynamic diplomacy" on its nuclear projects, IRNA stated. Entezami said, "Iran's policy of reliance on national will for having access to full cycle of nuclear fuel remains unchanged today, and our country has fixed the result of taking first resolute step in that regard, which is resuming work at Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF), as another significant achievement of IRI diplomacy. The SNSC Spokesman added, "The recent session of the IAEA Board of governors proved that the worries expressed by some politicians are unfounded." He added, "I remind you of the Western threats before November24 th, when they kept reminding us that if we would not shut down our Isfahan UCF facility again it would be interpreted as a Iran's defiant stand that would definitely result in forwarding our dossier to the UNSC, and that the result would be economic sanctions." "Even some comments by non-experts, due to lack of proper knowledge on mechanisms applied by international bodies, and miscalculations on US status in the region and on role of US and world public opinion, had come up with the conclusion that our conduct might lead to outbreak of a new war." Entezami reiterated, "Such analyses proved that unfortunately the opponents of the Iranian nation had achieved some of their objectives, since they were after capturing the minds of political activists, and our people, while such analyses and the worries thus expressed proved they had unfortunately achieved their objective." The SNSC spokesman emphasized, "The result of the recent IAEA session proves that we can, relying on our rational conduct and elaborating our nation's demands, while respecting the international laws and our commitments and refraining from any type of extremism, achieve our goals in this respect, IRNA added. Entezami added, "Fortunately relying on such harmonized moves the dead-end of negotiations no longer exists, and the letter sent by EU 3FMs Sunday to IRI SNSC Secretary was an official response to Iran's request for finding a rational solution to this crisis, although we had already gained that response implicitly in agency's November 4 communique and its preceding talks there." The SNSC Spokesman expressed hope at the end that Iran would in the new round of its negotiations with EU reach a mutual understanding, based on which it would be able to defend its natural right as a member of the IAEA to take advantage of the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, like any other IAEA member, IRNA stated. -------- israel Israel a major threat to regional security: Paper Tehran, Nov 29, IRNA http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0511299218151443.htm An Iranian newspaper strongly criticized on Tuesday the world community for turning a blind eye on the Zionist regime's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which represents a major threat to the region's security and stability. Referring to the current international controversy about Iran's nuclear program, 'Tehran Times' said it was "Biased and lacks objectivity and fairness. "While Iran has been harassed for years, Israel remained untouched," said the editorial adding, "This unequal treatment is a major reason for tensions in the region." It further said the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East should be addressed as a matter concerning all countries in the region. "Targeting Iran alone does not solve the problem and is therefore a futile exercise," stressed the daily. Criticizing the international community, the United States in particular, for not admitting the undeniable fact that the Zionist regime of Israel "Is a nuclear power," the daily said "Neither the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nor any other UN agency has ever had access to Israel's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." It also referred to the Paragraph 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687 of April 3, 1991 which says everything which had happened in Iraq was for, "...Establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. "That includes Israel, and involves the entire international community," stressed the article. It further noted "As long as weapons inspections are not conducted in Israel, Iran is entitled to oppose unilateral measures." -------- japan Japan's Deadly Game of Nuclear Roulette By Leuren Moret This is a slightly edited version of an article that appeared in The Japan Times, May 23, 2004. Posted at Japan Focus on November 29, 2005. http://www.japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=460 [Leuren Moret is an internationally recognized geoscientist and critic of nuclear power who has maintained a long interest in Japan's nuclear power program. As she points out in this article, Japan is the world's 3rd largest nuclear producer, with 52 reactors (versus 72 in France and 118 in the United States). Japan's reactors produce about 30 percent of the country's electricity. Japan is also one of the most earthquake-prone countries in the world, with a multiplicity of active fault zones. In persuasive detail spelled out in a map, Moret shows that Japan's nuclear industry has generally neglected the earthquake threat and built its reactors close to fault zones. She shows that Japanese government and industry has no serious emergency planning in the event of a disaster. For example, Japan's most seismically dangerous nuclear plant - the Hamaoka reactor in Shizuoka Prefecture - has Emergency Response Centres (ERCs) equipped with tiny decontamination showers that would be of little avail in the event of a serious emergency. In fact, planning for a very serious nuclear emergency is in many respects not possible. According to Moret, the scale of the disaster would be of such magnitude as to render any conceivable emergency response totally inadequate and ineffective. She shows why the only adequate response ultimately is to prevent accidents by turning away from nuclear energy. This is particularly daunting news for Japanese energy planners. The importance of this article has, if anything, increased since its initial publication last year. With world oil prices spiraling and mounting concerns over energy costs and long-term supplies, the Japanese nuclear industry has sought to play on fears of energy shortage in a bid to overcome a slew of recent nuclear mishaps and convince the public that more nuclear plants are necessary. Such heavy lobbying evident in the UK and elsewhere, threatens to soak up funding and attention to the pressing need to develop alternative renewable energy sources. Citing the example of several successful retrofitted US nuclear plants that now burn natural gas, Moret argues that this is a far safer alternative. At present it appears that neither the spiraling of oil prices nor the prospect that peak oil production is imminent has led to serious scientific efforts to develop such renewable energy sources as solar and wind power. Japan Focus] Of all the places in all the world where no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list. An aerial view of the Hamaoka plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, "the most dangerous nuclear power plant in Japan" The Japanese archipelago is located on the so-called Pacific Rim of Fire, a large active volcanic and tectonic zone ringing North and South America, Asia and island arcs in Southeast Asia. The major earthquakes and active volcanoes occurring there are caused by the westward movement of the Pacific tectonic plate and other plates leading to subduction under Asia. Japan sits on top of four tectonic plates, at the edge of the subduction zone, and is in one of the most tectonically active regions of the world. It was extreme pressures and temperatures, resulting from the violent plate movements beneath the seafloor, that created the beautiful islands and volcanoes of Japan. Nonetheless, like many countries around the world -- where General Electric and Westinghouse designs are used in 85 percent of all commercial reactors -- Japan has turned to nuclear power as a major energy source. In fact the three top nuclear-energy countries are the United States, where the existence of 118 reactors was acknowledged by the Department of Energy in 2000, France with 72, and Japan, where 52 active reactors were cited in a December 2003 Cabinet White Paper. The 52 reactors in Japan -- which generate a little over 30 percent of its electricity -- are located in an area the size of California, many within 150 km of each other and almost all built along the coast where seawater is available to cool them. However, many of those reactors have been negligently sited on active faults, particularly in the subduction zone along the Pacific coast, where major earthquakes of magnitude 7-8 or more on the Richter scale occur frequently. The periodicity of major earthquakes in Japan is less than 10 years. There is almost no geologic setting in the world more dangerous for nuclear power than Japan -- the third-ranked country in the world for nuclear reactors. "I think the situation right now is very scary," says Ishibashi Katsuhiko, a seismologist and professor at Kobe University. "It's like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode." In summer 2003, I visited Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, at the request of citizens concerned about the danger of a major earthquake. I spoke about my findings at press conferences afterward. A map of Japan annotated by the author, showing the tectonic plates, areas of high ("observed region") and very high ("specially observed") quake risk, and the sites of nuclear reactors Because Hamaoka sits directly over the subduction zone near the junction of two plates, and is overdue for a major earthquake, it is considered to be the most dangerous nuclear power plant in Japan. Together with local citizens, I spent the day walking around the facility, collecting rocks, studying the soft sediments it sits on and tracing the nearly vertical faults through the area -- evidence of violent tectonic movements. The next day I was surprised to see so many reporters attending the two press conferences held at Kakegawa City Hall and Shizuoka Prefecture Hall. When I asked the reporters why they had come so far from Tokyo to hear an American geoscientist, I was told it was because no foreigner had ever come to tell them how dangerous Japan's nuclear power plants are. I told them that this is the power of gaiatsu (foreign pressure). Because citizens in the United States with similar concerns attract little media attention, we invite a Japanese to speak for us when we want media coverage -- someone like the famous seismologist Professor Ishibashi! When the geologic evidence was presented confirming the extreme danger at Hamaoka, the attending media were obviously shocked. The aerial map, filed by Chubu Electric Company along with its government application to build and operate the plant, showed major faults going through Hamaoka, and revealed that the company recognized the danger of an earthquake. They had carefully placed each reactor between major fault lines. "The structures of the nuclear plant are directly rooted in the rock bed and can tolerate a quake of magnitude 8.5 on the Richter scale," the utility claimed on its Web site. From my research and the investigation I conducted of the rocks in the area, I found that that the sedimentary beds underlying the plant were badly faulted. When I held up samples of the rocks the plant was sitting on, they crumbled like sugar in my fingers. "But the power company told us these were really solid rocks!" the reporters said. I asked, "Do you think these are really solid?' and they started laughing. On July 7 2003, the same day of my visit to Hamaoka, Ishibashi warned of the danger of an earthquake-induced nuclear disaster, not only to Japan but globally, at an International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics conference held in Sapporo. He said: "The seismic designs of nuclear facilities are based on standards that are too old from the viewpoint of modern seismology and are insufficient. The authorities must admit the possibility that an earthquake-nuclear disaster could happen and weigh the risks objectively." After the greatest nuclear power plant disaster in Japan's history at Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, in September 1999, large, expensive Emergency Response Centers were built near nuclear power plants to calm nearby residents. After visiting the center a few kilometers from Hamaoka, I realized that Japan has no real nuclear-disaster plan in the event that an earthquake damaged a reactor's water-cooling system and triggered a reactor meltdown. Additionally, but not even mentioned by Emergency Response Center (ERC) officials, there is an extreme danger of an earthquake causing a loss of water coolant in the pools where spent fuel rods are kept. As reported last year in the journal Science and Global Security, based on a 2001 study by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if the heat-removing function of those pools is seriously compromised -- by, for example, the water in them draining out -- and the fuel rods heat up enough to combust, the radiation inside them will then be released into the atmosphere. This may create a nuclear disaster even greater than Chernobyl. If a nuclear disaster occurred, power-plant workers as well as emergency-response personnel in the Hamaoka ERC would immediately be exposed to lethal radiation. During my visit, ERC engineers showed us a tiny shower at the center, which they said would be used for "decontamination' of personnel. However, it would be useless for internally exposed emergency-response workers who inhaled radiation. When I asked ERC officials how they planned to evacuate millions of people from Shizuoka Prefecture and beyond after a Kobe-magnitude earthquake (Kobe is on the same subduction zone as Hamaoka) destroyed communication lines, roads, railroads, drinking-water supplies and sewage lines, they had no answer. Last year, James Lee Witt, former director of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, was hired by New York citizens to assess the U.S. government's emergency-response plan for a nuclear power plant disaster. Citizens were shocked to learn that there was no government plan adequate to respond to a disaster at the Indian Point nuclear reactor, just 80 km from New York City. The Japanese government is no better prepared, because there is no adequate response possible to contain or deal with such a disaster. Prevention is really the only effective measure to consider. In 1998, Kei Sugaoka, 51, a Japanese-American senior field engineer who worked for General Electric in the United States from 1980 until being dismissed in 1998 for whistle-blowing there, alerted Japanese nuclear regulators to a 1989 reactor inspection problem he claimed had been withheld by GE from their customer, Tokyo Electric Power Company. This led to nuclear-plant shutdowns and reforms of Japan's power industry. Later it was revealed from GE documents that they had in fact informed TEPCO -- but that company did not notify government regulators of the hazards. Kikuchi Yoichi, a Japanese nuclear engineer who also became a whistle-blower, has told me personally of many safety problems at Japan's nuclear power plants, such as cracks in pipes in the cooling system from vibrations in the reactor. He said the electric companies are "gambling in a dangerous game to increase profits and decrease government oversight." Sugaoka agreed, saying, "The scariest thing, on top of all the other problems, is that all nuclear power plants are aging, causing a deterioration of piping and joints which are always exposed to strong radiation and heat." Like most whistle-blowers, Sugaoka and Kikuchi are citizen heroes, but are now unemployed. The Radiation and Public Health Project, a group of independent U.S. scientists, has collected 4,000 baby teeth from children living around nuclear power plants. These teeth were then tested to determine their level of Strontium-90, a radioactive fission product that escapes in nuclear power plant emissions. Unborn children may be exposed to Strontium-90 through drinking water and the diet of the mother. Anyone living near nuclear power plants is internally exposed to chronically low levels of radiation contaminating food and drinking water. Increased rates of cancer, infant mortality and low birth weights leading to cognitive impairment have been linked to radiation exposure for decades. However, a recent independent report on low-level radiation by the European Committee on Radiation Risk, released for the European Parliament in January 2003, established that the ongoing U.S. Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb Studies conducted in Japan by the U.S. government since 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors underestimated the risk of radiation exposure as much as 1,000 times. Additionally, on March 26 2004 -- the eve of the 25th anniversary of the worst nuclear disaster in U.S. history, at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania -- the Radiation and Public Health Project released new data on the effects of that event. This showed rises in infant deaths up to 53 percent, and in thyroid cancer of more than 70 percent in downwind counties -- data which, like all that concerning both the short- and long-term health effects, has never been forthcoming from the U.S. government. It is not a question of whether or not a nuclear disaster will occur in Japan; it is a question of when it will occur. Like the former Soviet Union after Chernobyl, Japan will become a country suffering from radiation sickness destroying future generations, and widespread contamination of agricultural areas will ensure a public-health disaster. Its economy may never recover. Considering the extreme danger of major earthquakes, the many serious safety and waste-disposal issues, it is timely and urgent -- with about half its reactors currently shut down -- for Japan to convert nuclear power plants to fossil fuels such as natural gas. This process is less expensive than building new power plants and, with political and other hurdles overcome, natural gas from the huge Siberian reserves could be piped in at relatively low cost. Several U.S. nuclear plants have been converted to natural gas after citizen pressure forced energy companies to make changeovers. Commenting on this way out of the nuclear trap, Ernest Sternglass, a renowned U.S. scientist who helped to stop atmospheric testing in America, notes that, 'Most recently the Fort St. Vrain reactor in Colorado was converted to fossil fuel, actually natural gas, after repeated problems with the reactor. An earlier reactor was the Zimmer Power Plant in Cincinnati, which was originally designed as a nuclear plant but it was converted to natural gas before it began operating. This conversion can be done on any plant at a small fraction [20-30 percent] of the cost of building a new plant. Existing turbines, transmission facilities and land can be used." After converting to natural gas, the Fort St. Vrain plant produced twice as much electricity much more efficiently and cheaply than from nuclear energy -- with no nuclear hazard at all, of course. It is time to make the changeover from nuclear fuel to fossil fuels in order to save future generations and the economy of Japan. Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who worked at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory on the Yucca Mountain Project, and became a whistle-blower in 1991 by reporting science fraud on the project and at Livermore. She is an independent and international radiation specialist, and the Environmental Commissioner in the city of Berkeley, Calif. She has visited Japan four times to work with Japanese citizens, scientists and elected officials on radiation and peace issues. She can be contacted at leurenmoret@yahoo.com ---- Protesters at Yokosuka rally against U.S. plans Nuclear carrier, realignment of forces top concerns By Allison Batdorff and Hana Kusumoto, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Tuesday, November 29, 2005 http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=32466&archive=true YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — Sunday’s wasn’t a single-issue protest. The estimated 2,000 people rallying outside Yokosuka’s Daiei Mall on Sunday afternoon brought a list of concerns ranging from nuclear aircraft carriers to noise pollution. The primary concern was the U.S. Navy’s plan to include a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier as part of the forward-deployed forces at Yokosuka Naval Base. The USS Kitty Hawk is scheduled for decommissioning in 2008 and will be replaced by a Nimitz-class, nuclear-powered ship. “When nothing is happening, that’s OK. But I’m worried about when something happens — such as terrorism — and the carrier is attacked, and [the attack] causes accidents such as a nuclear reactor explosion,” said Hideto Sugiyama, a Yokosuka city worker and a member of the city’s labor union. Protesters from 21 organizations and local residents marched together along Route 16 from Verny Park, outside of the base’s main gate to Yokosuka Chuo station. They stopped in front of the base gate along the way, shouting, “We are against home-porting of a nuclear carrier to Yokosuka,” “Withdraw home-porting of Kitty Hawk,” “We are against relocation of I Corps Headquarters to Camp Zama,” and “We are against strengthening U.S. bases due to realigning U.S. forces.” Recent announcements on the partial relocation of the air wing from Naval Air Facility Atsugi to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, the Kitty Hawk replacement and persistent rumors of an increased military presence in Camp Zama formed the basis of the remarks. Several Americans watched the protest from the sidelines. Seaman Andrew Hale has seen Yokosuka protests before and doesn’t appreciate them. “They are very polite, but they (the protesters) don’t seem to realize what we’re doing for them,” Hale said. Former Navy Lt. Susan Murphy was concerned that some of the protesters seemed misinformed, but she wasn’t bothered by their presence. “I think it’s fine to feel that way, but I hope they know what they’re protesting,” Murphy said. “I saw one of the signs had the nuclear symbol on an aircraft carrier. Yes, they are nuclear-propelled, but that’s a really small part of what the ship is about.” Petty Officer 2nd Class Jason Vaughn witnessed worse anti-US military sentiment in Italy, he said. “It’s a free country” Vaughn said, with a shrug. “People should be able to express how they feel.” People are expressing their concern in written form, said Masahiko Goto, leader of the Citizens Coalition Concerning Home-Porting of a Nuclear-Powered Carrier to Yokosuka Naval Base. The citizen’s group collected 350,000 signatures since spring 2004 on a petition opposing a nuclear-powered carrier. The group plans to present it to the Kanagawa governor Wednesday and take their worries to Washington in December. Daisuke Horiuchi wants the U.S. military to leave Japan once and for all. A member of the Citizens Movement for Declaration of Denuclearization, Yokosuka, and a band called Yorozu Peace Band, Horiuchi has protested against U.S. bases for more than 15 years, he said. The band plays during their monthly protest because they are “tired of chanting.” “I simply want a tool for war to go away,” Horiuchi said. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- california Livermore Labs Get OK To Increase Plutonium Stores Nov 29, 2005 (AP) http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_333211628.html The Energy Department gave clearance Tuesday to doubling the amount of plutonium that can be kept at the Livermore National Laboratory in California despite protests by some local activists that the weapons material poses a threat to adjacent residential communities. The department issued the new plutonium levels as part of an environmental review for operating the laboratory, including its defense nuclear programs, for the next decade. It said the review showed no adverse environmental impacts associated with the weapons research even if more plutonium is made available. The announcement said the maximum amount of plutonium that can be kept at the laboratory in Livermore, 40 miles from downtown San Francisco, can be increased from the current 1,540 pounds to 3,080 pounds. It also increased the maximum amount of plutonium that can be used in a specific operation from 44 pounds to 88 pounds, thereby expanding the kinds of research activities that are possible. Plutonium, a radioactive material deadly if inhaled or ingested, is used to make so-called pits for nuclear weapons. At Livermore, it is used for research into weapons components and the reliability of existing warheads. The amount of plutonium kept at Livermore's "Superblock" facility -- where nuclear weapons research is conducted -- is classified. It doesn't necessarily mean the maximum amount of plutonium authorized will be used, or is even on site, said John Belluardo, a Livermore spokesman. Belluardo said the plutonium is needed "to continue our work at the laboratory." The announcement brought a sharp response from local activists who have been fighting for years to force the Energy Department to remove all plutonium from the Livermore facility, not add to the stockpile. They argue the material is too dangerous and could become a target of terrorists. "Today's decision puts the entire San Francisco Bay area at risk," said Loulena Miles, an attorney for Tri-Valley CAREs, a Livermore-based activist group. Marylia Kelley, the group's executive director, said 7 million people live within a 50-mile radius of the laboratory, which once was in open countryside but now rests in the heart of San Francisco's suburbia. "One microscopic particle of plutonium, if lodged in the lungs, can cause cancer and other diseases," Kelley said. The Energy Department's environmental assessment concluded that the increased plutonium can be kept safely and out of the environment. "The lab has been conducting experiments using plutonium and highly enriched uranium for many years, and we have an excellent safety record and safety continues to be of paramount importance," said Belluardo, the Livermore spokesman, in a telephone interview. He said Tri-Valley CAREs' objections are addressed point by point in the DOE decision. The Energy Department has been considering whether to consolidate plutonium kept at various weapons-related facilities so that they can be better secured from potential terrorist attacks. Plutonium at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, for example, is being moved to the Nevada Test Site. Whether Livermore's plutonium may one day be consolidated elsewhere remains an open question that likely will not be answered under the Energy Department decides how to revamp the entire weapons complex. Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, who signed the Livermore record of decision issued Tuesday, has opposed removing plutonium from the California laboratory. Lab officials worry that if the plutonium, which is used in weapons research, is taken elsewhere, its weapons programs will be forced to shut down. Kelley, the local activist, said she worries that the increase in plutonium means expanded weapons work. Doubling the amount of plutonium workers can use in a single process "is largely to enable Livermore lab to produce prototype plutonium bomb cores, or pits," she maintains. The DOE also said that Livermore can expand its supply of tritium, a radioactive gas used in weapons production, and increase by nearly tenfold the amount of tritium that can be used in single experiments, from 3.5 grams to 30 grams. -------- illinois NRC ISSUES CONFIRMATORY ORDER AND REDUCES FINE FOR RADIATION SAFETY VIOLATION AT LASALLE Last revised Tuesday, November 29, 2005 Nuclear Regulatory Commission http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2005/05-045iii.html The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff issued an Order confirming commitments made to the NRC by Exelon Generation Co. and reduced the amount of a fine as part of a settlement agreement concerning a violation of radiation safety requirements at the company’s LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station. The plant, which has two reactors, is located near Seneca, Ill. The violation occurred when four employees of a contractor working at the LaSalle Station entered a high radiation area without authorization on Jan. 25, 2004. NRC investigators determined that the violation was willful in that the foreman and two of the workers were aware they were not authorized to enter the high radiation area and had not received the briefing by radiation protection personnel necessary to enter the area. The workers did not receive a significant radiation exposure. The maximum radiation exposure received was 5 millirem, which is a small fraction of the NRC limit of 5,000 millirem per year for workers at nuclear facilities. The NRC issued Exelon a Notice of Violation and proposed a $60,000 fine on May 2, 2005 (see NRC press release issued May 4, 2005). On May 12, 2005, Exelon announced its intention to appeal the NRC’s enforcement action through the use of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR), a process used to help the NRC and the utility to reach agreement. As part of this process, the utility and the NRC staff met with an independent mediator and reached a settlement agreement. The utility acknowledged that the violation had occurred and committed to carrying out extensive corrective action to address the problem. The NRC reduced the fine from the proposed $60,000 to $10,000 as a result of the utility’s commitments to improve radiation safety rules, procedures and awareness at the plant. Exelon has until December 22 to pay the fine. “The commitments made by the utility to make sure radiation safety rules and procedures are properly understood and enforced will help the NRC gain stronger confidence that nuclear workers are protected from excessive doses of radiation at the LaSalle plant,” said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. The Confirmatory Order to Exelon and other documents related to this case are available from the Region III Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Enter docket number 05000373 as a search term. -------- indiana NRC PROPOSES $60,000 FINE AGAINST D.C. COOK FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Tuesday, November 29, 2005 http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2005/05-044iii.html The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $60,000 fine against Indiana Michigan Power Company for failing to provide complete and accurate information and meet reporting requirements for NRC-licensed operators at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located near Bridgman, Mich. The violations were identified during an NRC inspection (NRC Inspection Report No. 05000315/2005006) conducted at D.C. Cook in spring and summer 2005 to review the plant’s reactor operator licensing program. The inspection also reviewed corrective actions undertaken to address a previous violation (EA-04-109 issued Sept. 29, 2004) in the same area. NRC inspectors identified three violations: (1) the utility had provided the NRC with incomplete and inaccurate information. The utility stated that a complete review of all operator medical records had been conducted and that no records that would require restrictions to operator licenses for medical reasons had been found. However, NRC inspectors identified three licensed operators who had medical conditions that would require their licenses to be restricted; (2) the utility had failed to notify the NRC about licensed operators experiencing a permanent illness within 30 days. Two NRC-licensed operators at the plant were diagnosed with potentially disqualifying medical conditions in 1998 and 2003. However, the NRC was not notified of these facts until 2005; (3) the utility also failed to provide the NRC with complete and accurate information on NRC reactor license applications. Applications submitted to the NRC for new, renewed and amended NRC licenses did not describe the individuals’ recently diagnosed medical conditions that would affect the conditions of these licenses. “Reactor operators licensed by the NRC are entrusted with safe operation of nuclear reactors and must be capable of performing their assigned duties. For that reason, their physical condition and general health are significant concerns of the NRC and are closely monitored,” said NRC Regional Administrator James Caldwell. “Providing the NRC with accurate and timely information on changes in reactor operators’ health that may affect their ability to perform their duties is key to the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission of protecting public health and safety.” Indiana Michigan Power Company has taken such corrective actions as developing guidance for the submission of reactor operator application forms; revising administrative procedures to discuss regulatory requirements with the medical review officer prior to performing the annual medical records review; training operators on the requirements to report a change in medical condition. The notice to the utility on the enforcement action will be available online at http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html and from the NRC Region III Office of Public Affairs. D.C. Cook inspections reports are available through the NRC’s online document collection, known as ADAMS, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html by entering docket number 50-315 and 50-316. The utility has until December 18 to pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the utility may request a hearing. -------- missouri Missouri workers honored for duty during Cold War Published Tuesday, November 29, 2005 (AP) http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Nov/20051129News015.asp ST. LOUIS - An interpretive display being unveiled today tells the story of more than 3,500 Missourians who worked at Manhattan Project and Cold War-era nuclear sites in St. Louis, Weldon Spring and Hematite. The tribute will become a permanent display at the Weldon Spring Interpretive Center in St. Charles County, where some of the radioactive waste from that period is stored in an engineered disposal cell. A narrative explains how workers at the old Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. plant in St. Louis produced uranium dioxide for the atom bomb in the 1940s and processed uranium for Cold War-era nuclear weapons from 1957 to 1966 at the old Weldon Spring plant. The workers have the U.S. government’s admission that it subjected workers to dangerously high levels of radiation exposure, said Denise Brock of Moscow Mills, an advocate for workers such as her father - who died of cancer from radiation exposure - and who came up with the idea for the tribute. "They also need to be recognized," she said. "They have a place in history. ... It was catastrophic to families. It threw my family into poverty. We still haven’t gotten out of it." Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who said yesterday the United States is indebted to the "cold warriors," is among the dignitaries who will be at the center today. He is expected to announce Congress has approved speedier government compensation for a group of Mallinckrodt workers whose cancers are assumed to be tied to radiation exposure. Brock said Mallinckrodt was the nation’s leading producer of purified uranium, generating tons a day. A federal panel in August and Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt in October endorsed the awarding of automatic $150,000 payments to former employees - or their survivors - who worked at Mallinckrodt from 1949 to 1957 and have one of 22 cancers. Those who worked at Mallinckrodt from 1942 to 1948 became eligible to apply for automatic payments earlier this year. Brock spearheaded efforts to win the designation for both groups of workers and was the first to do so, not by legislation, but administratively. That distinction will be noted at the tribute display at Weldon Spring Interpretive Center. It also includes a timeline of the nuclear age including international and St. Louis events, documentary photographs, a book of workers’ names, and a glass case of old badges and other plant artifacts. The display also recognizes workers at a Hematite plant that turned uranium into fuel rods under a string of owners from Mallinckrodt in 1956 to Westinghouse Electric in 2001. -------- new mexico LANL: Report: Nuclear Agency Not Ready for New Contract By Andy Lenderman, The Santa Fe New Mexican, Tuesday, 29 November 2005 http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/316676/lanl_report_nuclear_agency_not_ready_for_new_contract/index.html?source=r_science Nov. 29--A federal safety inspector says the National Nuclear Security Administration's Los Alamos office is not ready to manage a new operating contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory. A shortage of qualified employees, lack of focus and staff turnover were among concerns mentioned by the federal Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in a series of recent weekly reports. The NNSA's Los Alamos office "has issues that hamper effective oversight and is not ready to manage contract transition or the new contract," an Oct. 28 report reads. A spokesman for the NNSA's Los Alamos office said his group is working to address the concerns raised by the board, which is an independent agency that aims to hold the country's nuclear facilities accountable for safety issues. The NNSA and a new contractor, which will be announced in December, will oversee the lab for the federal government. The contractor will manage the lab, and the NNSA's local office will provide oversight on issues like security management, environmental stewardship and safety and health issues. "We'll continue to work very, very diligently and ensure that were going to have everything in place to have this contract ready," said Bernie Pleau, a spokesman for the NNSA's Los Alamos Site Office. The Oct. 28 report also said the NNSA office will enter a three-month "strategic pause" in December for "an organizational reboot." Staffing needs, formalizing policies, training and qualifications would be covered during that time, the report said. Pleau said his office is in the process of hiring 10 to 15 new people. There are about 131 NNSA employees working in the Los Alamos Site Office now, according to the office's Web site. "We do think there is a staffing shortage right now," Pleau said. NNSA is also analyzing how to do its job. "Everything is on the table," Pleau said, "from public affairs clear on down to security management. And we're trying to determine and focus on those areas where we think the work is most needed." Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, a nuclear-disarmament watchdog group, said there's no excuse for the government not to be ready for the contract transition. After December's contract announcement, the lab will enter a six-month transition period. The new contractor is scheduled to take over management of the lab on June 1, 2006. Two coalitions are competing to manage the lab, which has a $2.2 billion budget and more than 15,000 employees and contractors. The University of California has teamed with Bechtel National, and the University of Texas has joined Lockheed Martin Corp. in the competition. The winner could earn up to $79 million a year to run the lab, which has been managed by the University of California alone since 1943. -------- MILITARY -------- space Iran Seeks to Master Space Technology By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: November 29, 2005 Filed at 1:37 p.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iran-Space.html TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's space agency is trying to snap up technology from abroad as fast as possible for its satellite program, fearing the West will seek to impose restrictions like those put on the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has major ambitions in space, looking to show off its technological abilities, monitor its neighborhood -- where the United States has hundreds of thousands of troops -- and establish itself as a regional superpower. Others are concerned about the program's military applications, particularly Israel, whose existence is opposed by the hard-line Islamic regime in Iran. Iran's Shahab-3 missile, with a range of 1,240 miles, already can reach Israel as well as U.S. forces across the Middle East. Iran says it only wants to be able to put its own satellites in space to monitor natural disasters in the earthquake-prone nation and improve its telecommunications. It makes similar peaceful claims for its atomic program, but Washington and others suspect the real aim of that work is to acquire nuclear weapons and have sought to clamp down on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran worries its space program will be targeted, too. ''The moment they feel Iran has made a breakthrough, they will impose restrictions more than those they have imposed on Iran's nuclear program,'' said one space official, Mohammad Reza Movaseghinia. Iran joined the space club last month when it launched its first small satellite, the Sina-1, aboard a Russian rocket. That orbiter was Russian-made, but Iran built its second satellite, the Mesbah, with help from the Italian company Carlo Gavazzi Space. Mesbah is due to be carried into space by a Russian rocket in about two months. The two satellites will give Iran a limited capability to monitor the entire Middle East. Iran's next goal is to launch a satellite with one of its own rockets. Iranian officials say they are developing a Shahab-4 missile that could lift a satellite into orbit, but have not given details on when it will be ready. ''We have to move quickly and achieve our goals in space. Otherwise, we will face political, economic and security threats,'' Movaseghinia said. Space agency officials have not given details on what technology or expertise they need from abroad, but they have been racing to learn as much as they can. Under its 20-year plan, Iran aims to become a technological powerhouse of western Asia and a regional superpower by 2025. Aerospace faculties have mushroomed at Iranian universities in recent years, and Iranian technicians are being trained in Italy, Russia and China on how to design and build satellites. The government has allocated $500 million on space projects for the next five years, Communication Minister Mohammad Soleimani said last week. Iran is now the world's 43rd country owning a satellite, but the government aims higher. ''We have to build our own satellites, our own launchers. We need to be one of eight top countries mastering space technology,'' said Ahmad Talebzadeh, the head of the Iranian Space Agency. Iranian officials point to America's use of space to monitor Afghanistan and Iraq before invading them and say they need similar abilities for their country's security. Israel also is a leader in satellite technology. Cameras on its Ofek-5 spy satellite have been keeping tabs on activities in Arab countries and Iran since 2002. Iran says the Sina-1 satellite is capable of monitoring Israel but has no military purposes. Officials describe it as a research satellite and say its camera can't pick out features that are smaller than 50 yards across. U.S. satellites can detect objects just a few feet wide. Russia, which has helped the Iranians with their nuclear program, appears to be the main partner in transferring space technology to Iran. ''Nuclear officials told us that they don't have a good experience of dealing with Russia,'' said Talebzadeh, referring to Moscow's slowness in completing a nuclear power plant in Iran. ''But countries we can obtain technology from is limited. And we can't ignore the fact that Russia is a world leader in space technology.'' In January, Iran signed a $132 million deal with a Russian firm to build and launch a telecommunications satellite within the next two years. Iran has also signed agreements to launch a joint satellite with China and Thailand. ''We are at the very beginning of a long, long road in space technology. But we have the potential to develop an indigenous space program,'' said Mohammad Entezari, who is in charge of Iran's Mesbah satellite project. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Ex-Powell aide: Was U.S. fooled? Tuesday, November 29, 200 (AP)5; Posted: 10:14 a.m. EST (15:14 GMT) http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/29/us.iraq.ap/ LONDON, England -- A former senior U.S. State Department official says he has come to doubt whether President George W. Bush's administration presented an honest intelligence case for the war in Iraq. "You begin to speculate, you begin to wonder -- Was this intelligence spun? Was it politicized? Was it cherry-picked? Did in fact the American people get fooled? I'm beginning to have my concerns," Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said in an interview broadcast Tuesday. In the interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., Wilkerson repeated his criticisms of Vice President Dick Cheney, holding him responsible for abuses of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq and for shortcomings in post-war planning in Iraq. Asked whether Cheney was guilty of war crime, Wilkerson said: "Well that's an interesting question. It is certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror, and I would suspect that it is, for whatever it's worth, an international crime as well." He did not explain in the interview why he believed Cheney advocated terror, though he also said that Cheney was "very publicly lobbying the Congress of the United States advocating the use of terror." Wilkerson said he had believed that intelligence supported the view that Iraq had or was seeking to build weapons of mass destruction, and when none were found he accepted the argument that the administration had simply been fooled. Lately, however, he said he had been troubled by disclosures that an informant known as Curveball, who supplied information about alleged mobile biological laboratories, was not reliable, and new information casting doubt on statements made by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda military instructor, claiming support from Iraq. Al-Libi's information, Wilkerson said, "led Colin Powell to say at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 that there were some pretty substantive contacts between al Qaeda and Baghdad." It now appears, Wilkerson said, that al-Libi's statement "were obtained through interrogation techniques other than those authorized by Geneva (Conventions)." "More important than that, we know that there was a Defense Intelligence Agency dissent on that testimony even before Colin Powell made his presentation," Wilkerson said. "We never heard about that." -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy BP to Double Investment in Greener Energy Story by David Cullen and Tom Bergin REUTERS UK: November 29, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33704/story.htm LONDON - BP Plc plans to double its investment in greener energy sources over the next three years, in reaction to soaring demand for low carbon energy, the world's second-largest listed oil firm by market value said on Monday. BP may invest up to $8 billion in wind, solar, hydrogen and high efficiency gas-fired power generation projects over the next 10 years amid growing concern over global warming. Technological improvements, government incentives and higher energy prices mean that wind, hydrogen and solar energy projects are more economical than in the past. "We are now at a point where we have sufficient new technologies and sound commercial opportunities within our reach to build a significant and sustainable business in alternative and renewable energy," BP Chief Executive John Browne said. Demand for solar systems is rising 30 percent per year, BP said. In the past, some environmentalists have criticised BP's renewables activities as a sop aimed at greening the firm's oily image. But BP dismissed the suggestion the move was aimed at this or at deflecting criticism from politicians that oil firms have failed to invest enough of their bumper profits, earned from record oil prices, in new energy sources. "It is good business...The economy of the future will be a low carbon economy," Vivienne Cox, chief executive of BP's gas, power and renewables division, told reporters at a briefing. However, the vast majority of BP's around $15 billion annual investment budget will remain focused on oil and gas projects, which offer much higher returns. NEW UNIT The London-based oil giant will form a new unit called BP Alternative Energy to manage a fleet of projects that BP said had the potential to deliver sales around $6 billion a year within a decade. An initial $1.8 billion would be invested over the next three years, spread in broadly equal proportions between solar, wind, hydrogen and combined cycle gas turbines. Cox said the larger part of this would be invested in the United States. Browne added that within seven years the division would be expected to offer the same returns demanded of other customer-facing sections of the firm, such as fuel marketing. This is around 15 percent through the business cycle. The exact level of investment in the new unit depends on the nature of opportunities and government support for renewables and for alternative energy technology such as carbon capture. Wind operators are experiencing growing problems in finding turbine sites which are suitable and unopposed by residents and environmental groups. BP hopes to avoid this problem by erecting turbines on its own industrial sites. It has identified some US sites which are in high wind zones away from residential areas. It also hopes to build two hydrogen-fired power plants whose carbon emissions would be stored in depleted oil fields. One, at Peterhead in Scotland, will derive hydrogen from North Sea gas, although its development hinges on government incentives. The other unidentified project would be in the United States and would burn hydrogen derived from low value refinery by-products. CO2 sequestration can also have the advantage of extending the life of oil fields, by keeping up reservoir pressure. BP's move is at odds with the views of some in the oil industry, including the world's largest private oil and gas firm, Exxon Mobil, which argues renewables are a poor use of investors' funds. -------- OTHER -------- environment Chinese Toxic Spill Could Hit Russia in Days Story by Meg Clothier REUTERS RUSSIA: November 29, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33698/story.htm MOSCOW - A toxic spill from a Chinese factory will hit Russia within days and could pollute the drinking water supply of a major city in its far east by the second week of December, officials said on Monday. An explosion at a chemical plant in China's Jilin province around two weeks ago poured some 100 tonnes of cancer-causing benzene compounds into the Songhua river. Television pictures showed shops unloading bottled water supplies while scientists pushed aside lumps of ice to test the Amur river, which is fed by the Songhua -- Sungari in Russian. Russia's environmental watchdog said the spill could reach the first Russian settlements in the next two to three days, while the Emergencies Ministry said it could start affecting the major city of Khabarovsk by Dec. 10-12. "Our main task is to make sure people have water," said Russia's chief state epidemiologist, Gennady Onishchenko, adding that more than one million people could be affected. "Will we have to turn off the water supply? I cannot yet say with complete certainty," he told reporters. China's city of Harbin turned its taps on again on Sunday after the spill left millions without water for five days, with an 80-km (50-mile) slick still flowing beyond the city. Although officials say the slick should be less toxic by the time it crosses into Russia, Onishchenko warned that the dangerous compounds would have been diluted faster if the river was in full spate rather than half-frozen. The crisis has raised wider questions about the costs of China's breakneck economic boom. Around 70 percent of its rivers are contaminated. Onishchenko, who is also head of Russia's consumer rights watchdog, said Moscow needed to face up to the likelihood of similar spills happening in the future. "Such a heavily-populated territory as China by definition cannot give us clean water... We need to switch big towns to more secure sources of water," he said. Environmentalists have criticised China's response, saying it should have consulted more widely after the spill. "It is possible to talk about an ecological catastrophe, the consequences of which will be felt for a long time," the World Wildlife Fund said in a statement on its Russian Web site. -------- ACTIVISTS Coloradans File Federal Lawsuit Charging White House Staffers with Unlawful Removal During Bush "Town-Hall-Style" Event Tuesday, November 29th, 2005 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/29/1458251 Two Denver residents filed a federal lawsuit last week after being forcibly removed in March 2005 from an event with President Bush for their perceived political views. We speak with Alex Young and Leslie Weise about the details of the case. [includes rush transcript] President Bush is arriving in Denver today where he is scheduled to make an appearance at a fundraising dinner for Colorado Congressmember Marilyn Musgrave and boost her campaign fund for the 2006 mid-term elections. While the guest list for the event is being finalized, two Denver residents are definitely not invited - Leslie Weise and Alex Young. Last March, they attended a Bush town hall discussion on privatizing Social Security in Denver. Even though they had tickets for the event, they were promptly ejected from the building along with their friend Karen Bauer. This allegedly because of a bumper sticker on their car reading, "No More Blood for Oil." Eight of the nine members of the Colorado congressional delegation have publicly condemned the incident. Both Democrats and Republicans have called for answers from the White House. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit last week on behalf of Weise and Young, charging White House event staffers with unlawfully removing the two from the event. * Alex Young * Leslie Weise For more information: DenverThree.org RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Leslie Weise and Alex Young join us on the phone right now from Denver. We welcome you both. At the time we talked to you, Alex, when Democracy Now! was broadcasting from Denver, you didn't know who it was who was wearing an earpiece, and you thought he was Social Security, that told you to get out. You know now? ALEX YOUNG: We thought he was the Secret Service, actually. Amy. But, you know, basically, we've learned that this person is Mike Casper, and he’s a federal employee. He's done security at two [inaudible] before. But most importantly, I think, it's important to follow the earpiece and find out who was giving orders to the White House event staffers in Denver on that day and how high up in the White House this policy of removing citizens went. Was Karl Rove involved in drafting it? I think that's an important question. AMY GOODMAN: And so, you have sued who, Leslie? LESLIE WEISE: We have sued -- we've named Mike Casper. And we've named Jay Bob Klinkerman, who were two of the people we know were involved in our physical removal from the event that day. We've also named five other unnamed defendants, because there were other people involved in our removal that we don't know who the identities of these people are, but we intend to find out through the discovery process of the litigation. AMY GOODMAN: Alex, why you saying Karl Rove has some connection here? ALEX YOUNG: Well, it would just make sense. It's obviously a policy that's in place across the nation, from Fargo, North Dakota, where 42 people were removed -- or not removed, but not allowed to even get tickets to the event, because they had published letters critical of the President in the newspaper, to the very same day we were removed, there was a student who was removed in Arizona for having a t-shirt on that had a Democratic slogan on it. Then you have all other places across the nation, from Oregon to New Hampshire, people are just not allowed into these events because of their political viewpoints. It's obviously a policy, and we just want to know how high up in the administration it goes. AMY GOODMAN: Well, I know there's going to be a protest outside the Brown Palace this morning in protest of the Bush visit. Will you both be there? ALEX YOUNG: I think I'm going to take break on this one. It would probably be in poor taste to be there, since we're already suing people inside of the administration to try to disclose this policy. But I definitely think that people need to respect the viewpoints of all Americans, whether or not they're in line with -- AMY GOODMAN: Alex Young, we have to leave it there. Alex and Leslie Weise, I want to thank you very much for being with us. ---- Four Members of Christian Peacemakers Team Kidnapped in Iraq Tuesday, November 29th, 2005 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/29/1458227 A multi-national hostage team is trying to find a group of four members of the Christian Peacemakers Team that were kidnapped in Iraq on Sunday. The group includes an American, two Canadians and a British man identified as retired professor and peace activist Norman Kember. The other three peace activists kidnapped have not been identified. The Christian Peacemakers Team is a non-missionary organization that has been documenting the abuse of Iraqi detainees and working with the families of prisoners. They opposed the war and continue to oppose the occupation.